About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
in afghanistan in a strategy of nation building that is not the best use of our national security, not the best use of our soldiers who are there to fight for our national security, but those are decisions that were made in the past. and we must pay the bill on those decisions even when i disagreed with them. and then we need to put together a plan that takes on our deficit and our debt, and that plan has to put all of the options on the table. some of my colleagues across the aisle, they said, well, we want to protect the tax spending programs where we've tucked in tax provisions for the wealthy and the well connected. we want to defend those. we don't want to touch those for the best-off americans. but we want to cut the programs for working americans. that is unacceptable. we have seen enormous increase in the disparity between the wages and welfare of our citizens in general and the best-off becoming much, much wealthier proportionately. we can't continue to say that we're going to protect the well-connected while attacking working families. that's not the america we want to build. we want
billion in iraq and afghanistan to train the security forces, less than $10 billion to retrain our work force for the jobs of the future. well, mr. president, i see others have come on the floor. i'll wrap this up. deficit reduction is important. i'm not saying it isn't. but it is not the single-most important thing right now. the single-most important thing is to put people back to work. that will, as senator wyden said earlier, start to create the demand. it will spur more private investment as the federal government begins to invest in the future of this country. that's where we ought to be focusing on. once we get the wheels going again, once we get people back to work and the economy start to to -- starts to grow, that's when we start to reduce the deficit. to just focus on deficit reduction right now to the exclusion of putting people back to work reminds me of when doctors used to put leaches on people who were ill. it only made them more ill because it drained more blood out of their system. and most times proved fatal, as it did to our first president, george washington. our ur
that it needs that is a small percentage for wasting infrastructure in afghanistan. the notion that the cftc that the 80 or $90 billion more that we need can't be done because of the deficit that people spent in $147 billion so we can keep subsidizing american farmers is nonsense. similarly with the fcc they want to turn in. they will bring in more money to the system than it will be given to run it. that's one effect. in fact, what you have running here is a catch 22. first, deny the fcc and cftc adequate funding. they in turn are not able to deal with the rulemaking requirements that they have. then because we haven't been able to move as quickly, that's something they have imposed. obviously, you want the fcc and cftc to have smart people and information technology. i have to say i do not see it coming from the financial institutions. many of them recognize while you may not like the rules, if you've got the rules, you want them well run. this is coming from the republican party who just believe despite all of the evidence to the contrary that an unregulated free market works. you saw thi
iraq and afghanistan sooner than many here would like or that the president would like, and save substantial sums if we do that. most certainly if we're going to go forward with shared sacrifice, yes, we do have to ask billions, despite all of their power and all of their campaign contributions and all of their lobbying, maybe the billionaires who are doing phenomenally well may have to contribute to deficit reduction. yes, maybe those companies that stash their money in tax hyphens in pwerpld and the cayman eye hraldz -- in bermuda and the cayman islands, maybe they are going to have to start paying their fair share. on my web site which is sanders.senate.gov, i put a small letter which said to the president, mr. president, stand tall. take on these right-wing ideologues who want to make devastating cuts to working families. and in a couple of weeks we have 135,000 signatures on that letter, and i think that letter reflects what the american people want. they want shared sacrifice. they do not want to see the elderly, the kids or working families being battered more and more, es
though some would argue that it's the iraq and afghanistan war winddown savings that you would get, but whatever it is, it is larger than the house proposal and use that as the first cut by lifting the debt ceiling. but there would be a sequence of events that would happen after that to avoid what the senate democrats do not want, that the markets and the rating agencies cause the debt instruments, the u.s. treasury bills, to be downgraded, there needs to be certainty for those rating agencies for the united states government debt. and it could be achieved this way. that you have a brac-like committee, that being a committee that would be composed equally of republicans and democrats that would come up with a package that would then come back to each house, no amendments, up-or-down vote. but that the fail-safe backup in case that that committee were not able to come to agreement, or in the event that it came back to both houses and one of the houses did not pass it, that you would then have the mcconnell proposal which is that the president would request the increase of the debt a
currently we have soldiers fighting in afghanistan and people don't seem to forget that. i would not say any prime minister is not fighting for the right people. continues to fight for the right people. >> how would any of those prime ministers ask as editor or chief executive how often or would they ever ask you not to publish a story? would they ask you to spike a story? would that happen? >> i can't remember an occasion of prime minister asked that. >> politicians generally do that? >> no. i can remember many occasions when a cabinet minister or politician or prime minister was very unhappy with stories we were running and -- not that they would ask us not to. >> if they had you would have been interested anyway? >> if the story was true and accurate, no reason for a prime minister -- that is why we have a free press. >> final question. still a feeling that in some way you had a close relationship with the prime minister. the allegation seems to be is no different -- the benefit of what people need to see. you have a close relationship with the prime minister. that was helpful to him and
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)